By Scooter_McG
The 49ers said the deal to extend Fred Warner was just a matter of time, and that they saw him as a long term 49er. Of course, they said similar things about DeForest Buckner, so nothing was guaranteed. But on Wednesday, with the start of training camp looming, the 49ers indeed struck a deal that will make All-Pro LB Fred Warner the most expensive LB in the NFL.
Warner is reportedly signing a five year extension worth up to $95M, with $40.5M guaranteed - or $19M per year in new money. The extension will keep him with the 49ers until 2026.
While the average for the deal is $19M per year, some of this will likely be brought forward to 2021 in the form of a signing bonus, so his salary cap impact over the five new years will likely be lower than $19M. But don't expect too much to be brough forward - the 49ers don't have a lot of cap space available in 2021.
The details of the contract will be interesting to see how much of the cap hit they push into later years.
Signing Warner now is a smart move - the longer they waited the more likely it was that Darius Leonard would set the market, and the 49ers would likely be forced to pay more for Warner.
Razoreater says:
ReplyDeleteJanuary 30, 2018 at 8:57 am
Well done, Grant.
My current Draftmas wish list:
1. Nelson LG
2. Mata’afa Leo
3. Warner WLB
3. Cappa OT
4. Ballage RB
5. Yiadom CB
6. Shepherd DT
F/A:
Richburg C
Brate TE
Johnson CB
Gabriel WR
They are signing their core long term which is great to see. The key difference I see between Warner and Buckner is that there was depth on the DL with the ability to also get a first round pick in return. They really wanted to keep Buckner I'm sure but with Armstead coming in cheaper and getting a first rounder to replace him the decision was made for them. There is nobody on the roster to replace Warner both physically and mentally.
ReplyDeleteI wrote an article a few weeks back summarising some podcasts I had listened to. The main one was from the Athletic Football Show (which was also discussed on the Locked on 49ers podcast), where they went over how defenses are changing. I think what they discussed on that pod actually sets out why the 49ers moved on from Buck, but kept Warner, based on scheme.
DeleteI'll have to check it out thanks.
DeleteAlso, this GM/coach drafter Warner...the previous regime drafted Bucknor.
DeleteThe details of Warner's deal look favorable for the Niners in keeping things affordable until the cap balloons in 2023.
ReplyDeleteFrom PFT:
1. Signing bonus: $12.32 million.
2. 2021 base salary: $920,000, fully guaranteed at signing.
3. 2022 option bonus: $12.68 million, fully guaranteed at signing.
3. 2022 base salary $2.564 million, $1.58 million of which is fully guaranteed at signing. The rest becomes fully guaranteed early in the 2022 league year.
4. 2023 base salary: $12.925 million, $12.016 million of which becomes fully guaranteed early in the 2022 league year.
5. 2024 base salary: $15.3 million.
6. 2024 buyback bonus $3.6 million, which rescinds the voidable years of 2025 and 2026.
7. 2025 base salary (if void is rescinded): $17.65 million.
8. 2026 base salary (if void is rescinded): $17.65 million.
The deal also has $100,000 workout bonuses in 2022 through 2026, along with $500,000 46-man roster bonuses in years 2022 through 2026.
The deal has $27.5 million fully guaranteed at signing, with another $13.5 million that becomes fully guaranteed at the start of the 2022 league year. (To avoid the $40.5 million guarantee, the 49ers would have to cut Warner after one year, at a total obligation of $27.5 million.)
If the 49ers don’t exercise the buyback of the two voidable years, it becomes a three-year, $18.375 million deal, $40.5 million of which is guaranteed. If the 49ers exercise the buyback, it’s a five-year, $19 million extension.
Yep, kept the salary cap hit in 2021 around what it already was, and kept 2022 pretty low too. Another heavily backloaded deal. At some point that will probably come back to bite them, but hopefully the salary cap will rise sufficiently that it won't matter how many backloaded deals they are currently making.
DeleteWoohoo, Fred Warner, one of the best all around ILB in the NFL, has been locked down! That's a big deal, in more ways than one, lol.
DeleteMost of these back loaded deals have outs for the team, right? I really like Marathe's cap strategy. He's clearly one of the best in the business, IMO!
Looks like a good deal for both sides. An All-Pro contract for an All-Pro defender! Couldn't afford NOT to lock Warner up, so BRAVO!
DeleteThere are outs, but realistically the dead cap hit will be pretty steep if they move on prior to 2025. So he is likely a 49er until at least the end of the 2024 season, barring a trade.
DeleteThe terms around the voidable years in 2025 and 2026 means the 49ers will likely want to restructure the deal after the 2023 season.
Good points Scooter. He's a great player, but he is also an ILB, not exactly a premium position. But, he's earned it, and I like the message it sends. Let's hope he stays healthy ... KNOCK ON WOOD!
DeleteOne more thing:
DeleteBack-loading this deal came as a bit of a surprise to me, because I thought Jimmy was as good as gone before week 1. If the team was planning on starting Lance week 1, it would make sense to front-load the deal, and then move Garoppolo, or even release him. But .... that would also tip their hand in terms of their plans at QB, and hurt any chance they may have at trading Jimmy, if there is still a slim chance to do so.
So, now I am thinking that they really are planning the be patient with Lance, and that Garoppolo isn't going anywhere anytime soon, unless of course, someone makes an offer for Jimmy that the Niners can't refuse.
Not likely but stranger things have happened!
And this is the guy some were calling for as a sweetener in a trade for Deshaun Watson. Yeah, no thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt was hardly ludicrous to think Warner could get the Buckner treatment given salary cap situation.
DeleteIn the end they got around it by bringing in a rookie contract at QB. If they had gone for an experienced vet to replace JG, Warner would probably need to be a cap casualty. That's the flexibility a rookie contract at QB provides.
And if it came down to a debate over a top end LB or a top end QB, the answer is easy.
Delete>>And if it came down to a debate over a top end LB or a top end QB, the answer is easy.
DeleteStraight up, no argument here. But some of the more outlandish proposals from the armchair GM set were for Watson:
Garoppolo
*and* several 1st round picks
*and* Warner.
Any Niners braintrust member who signed off on something that asinine would rightly be unemployed right now.
Instead they spent 3 1st round picks + a 3rd on an unproven rookie QB. Is Watson, potential legal issues notwithstanding, not worth that?
DeleteThat's a good point Scooter. The trade up for Trey was risky business and as our late and lamented former site headlined, they'd better be right. If it all breaks down, at least they still have their all-pro LB.
Delete@Scooter:
DeleteYou're right about the QB vs LB question. But Warner is more of a "unicorn" than Buckner, making him more valuable.
Average annual contract value of Buck vs Warner suggests that isn't how the NFL views it.
DeleteAnd by some, I mean a lot of the names you'll find here.
ReplyDeletehttps://49ers.pressdemocrat.com/the-season-ends-whew-but-what-did-we-learn/
It sounds like the NFL is going to actually punish teams who have outbreaks of COVID-19 among non-vaccinated players, by making them forfeit games that can't be easily rescheduled, which would most often be the case.
ReplyDeleteGood for the NFL! I see no valid excuse for not getting the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer, Moderna). Most people have the ability to do the research on their own these days, and though mRNA (messenger RNA) vaccine technology is breakthrough technology, it's not new technology. Scientists have been researching, developing, and perfecting this technology for over 3 decades. In fact, we should consider ourselves fortunate to have this technology available at this critical time, because RNA Vaccines are superior to traditional protein vaccines. Sure, there are "risks", but not getting vaccinated has already proven to be a much bigger risk, and frankly, I have no sympathy for anyone who refuses to do the right thing to protect themselves, and perhaps more importantly, help protect others within their community!
GET VACCINATED!
Have to disagree. Imo, there's no reason for low-risk individuals to take any vaccine, and there's no reason to vaccinate an entire population for a disease with such a low kill rate.
DeleteGeorge, an issue there is that the population cohorts with the lowest risk of death from covid (young, healthy people) are also the cohorts most likely to contract and spread the virus, due to lifestyle factors.
DeleteSo you need to factor in whether those people have a societal obligation to get vaccinated not for their own health per se, but to reduce the risk of spreading it to individuals at higher risk.
Complicating matters is that the vaccine isn't 100% effective, so at risk people that get vaccinated aren't fully immune - so while it reduces their risk, the more prevalent the virus remains in the population at large the greater their risk remains. But, on the other hand, there are some risks to people from taking the vaccine, and the long term side effects are still unknown.
It's not an easy answer. Personally I fall on the side of getting vaccinated to help protect others, but I can understand why other people are hesitant (heck, I have reservations myself).
George, SMH I can't believe we are still having this conversation. Low kill rate? 625,000 and counting? We've now reached the pandemic of the unvaccinated, with nearly all new cases and deaths resulting from unvaccinated populations. The Delta variant, which is known to spread two to three times faster than the original version, is going to wreak havok and death through the unvaccinated. Low kill rate? Yes, but emergency and ICU rooms are starting to fill again. What about those hospital resources and the burden put on health care workers treating those who aren't kill rate statistics?
ReplyDeleteU
nless you are in a rare group preventing vaccination for legitimate medical reasons, vaccination is a no brainer.
vaccinated:
>90% effectiveness in preventing covid infection
In the case you still contract the virus, symptoms greatly reduced.
Furthermore, you're not vaccinated, you can still carry and spread the virus to loved ones and random strangers. The longer people stay unvaccinated, the more chances the virus has to mutate. Maybe even beyond the current vaccination effectiveness. No f-ing way am I going to contract a new variant because selfish (yes selfish!) individuals stupidly believed they didn't need to vaccinate.
SMDH I can't believe we are still having this conversation.
49Reasons, wholeheartedly second that "Good for the NFL". I am so beyond coddling anti-vax foolishness.
(the politics prohibition here will prevent me from expounding on who and why the American anti-vaxxers are)
I get the flu vaccine every year, so getting a shot is no big deal. Still, I did wait to make sure there were no initial issues with the mRNA vaccines. Frankly, I think it's amazing technology that has now proven itself to be far superior to the traditional vaccine methods, particularly in its ability to handle the variants.
ReplyDeleteI've suspected that if you're used to getting vaccinated (for something like the flu) getting the Covid vaccine is less of a big deal. It also seems to me that perhaps many young people hesitate because they just aren't used to getting a shot. However, I have no proof for that.